How often do you "correct" your photos in post production?

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5656362"><em>Michael Hoogterp</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"></a><em>, Oct 11, 2009; 12:44 p.m.</em><br>

<em>Weston would take one meter reading, dismiss it and make an exposure based on what he "felt" the exposure was. It drove Adams nuts, but he admitted that he couldn't argue with the results.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Michael, that sounds very familiar. It's nice to know that I'm not the only person who drives others nuts. It looks like I'm in good company !<br>

:-)</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

Weston made his own prints. He could afford to have over or under exposed negatives and then produce a fine print relying of paper hardness selection, dodging, burning, filtration, split developing, etc. If Weston just used a 35mm camera, dropped the film off at the lab and took whatever they gave him without corrections, he would have had some really bad prints.

You can pop a frozen TV dinner in the microwave and get a good meal. The same as dropping film off at the lab and taking what they give you. If all you ever had was TV dinners or prints from a lab, you don't know how good a meal or print you made yourself could be.

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=423911"><em>James Dainis</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Moderator" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/mod.gif" alt="" /><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Oct 11, 2009; 07:43 p.m.</em><br>

<em>Weston made his own prints. He could afford to have over or under exposed negatives and then produce a fine print relying of paper hardness selection, dodging, burning, filtration, split developing, etc.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>James, that riases the question of whether or not he actually (routinely) made bad exposures.<br>

Just because he made his own prints doesn't imply that he was a bad shooter and great darkroom "mechanic".<br>

It would be interesting to know.....<br>

Those of us who did "wet" photography know that it was a lot easier to start off with a good exposure, than to try to "fix" things in the trays.<br>

That was my process, it still is.</p>

<p>Bill P.<em> </em></p>

<p>It's all us architects' fault</p>

<p>Martin</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It's all us architects' fault</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Martin,<br>

It's great that architects pay very close attention to detail. It keeps buildings from falling down. It also presents challenges to those of us who would record your efforts.</p>

<p>But I love architecture and I'm truly in awe of the work that architects do. So please keep on being persnikity!<br>

<br />-Greg</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5012474"><em>Greg Peterson</em></a><em> </em><a href="../member-status-icons"><em><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></em></a><em>, Oct 12, 2009; 11:52 a.m.</em></p>

<p><em></em></p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>It's all us architects' fault</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em>Martin,<br />It's great that architects pay very close attention to detail.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I know, right ?<br>

And every now and again I see a building with some"persnickity" detail that compels me to get a photo.<br>

Manhattan is loaded with great examples.<br>

Seriously, if you know where to look, it's hard to miss.<br>

Hey, here's one now !</p>

<p>Bill P.<em></em></p>

<div></div>

<p>I've learnt a new word today - I have had clients call me all sorts of things - I'll have to make sure I add persnickity to their vocabulary - it'll save some of the bluer terms that get used.</p>

<p>There is never a perfect time to get that nice 'just completed' shot - you either get it just before the client moves in all their clutter, but the walls aren't finished, or you get boxes and that 'lived in' look that us architects just hate. So we always push for a bit of PP to add some spit and polish.</p>

<p>Martin</p>

<p>The greatest influence on the photo you will be able to get is the prevailing light at the scene, something you often have no control over.<br>

If you are not willing to enhance a photo afterwards you will often have to tell yourself: OK the light is no good, let's not take a shot.<br>

That can easily cut down the number of shots you take by a factor of ten.<br>

It's not too hard to get a good shot of a scene if you live there, know the possible lighting conditions and wait month after month for the perfect light to materialize.<br>

If you are only willing to shoot under such light it will cut down the number of shots by a factor of 10^4.</p>

<BLOCKQUOTE>

<P><A href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=5656772" mce_href="../photodb/user?user_id=5656772"><EM>Mike Meyer</EM></A><EM> </EM><A href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons" mce_href="../member-status-icons"></A><EM>, Oct 15, 2009; 08:55 a.m.</EM></P></BLOCKQUOTE>

<P>Hi Mike,</P>

<P>I've learned to work around the low light situation, and I do a large volume of nighttime shooting. Low light is part of life, it's part of photography.</P>

<P>Do you realize that 10^4 is one shot in ten thousand ?</P>

<P>That's a pretty discouraging shooting ratio.....</P>

<P> </P>

<P>Bill P. </P>

<p>I was thinking about situations of low dynamic range (very compressed histogram).<br>

Here postprocessing can help quite a bit.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=5656772"><em>Mike Meyer</em></a><em> </em><a href="/member-status-icons"></a><em>, Oct 15, 2009; 03:58 p.m.</em><br>

<em>I was thinking about situations of low dynamic range (very compressed histogram).<br />Here postprocessing can help quite a bit.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mike,<br>

Could you post a photo ?</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

<p>Mike, I see what you mean by low dynamic range, that's an easy fix.<br>

How did you arrive at the low dynamic range?<br>

The photo doesn't look natural (just an observation).</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>

<p>Sorry for the flood of messages.<br>

Straight out of the camera, resized and jpeg compressed to 96% (with the Gimp).</p><div></div>

<p>Hi Mike,<br>

I've had prevailing light situations like that also.<br>

Not every photo is an "award winner".<br>

Sometimes the weather is what it is.<br>

That's where some people run into trouble, feeling that they spent a ton o' money on photo gear and the pictures aren't always great. that's the nature of photography.<br>

Most of the time we have to chase the photos, they don't chase us.</p>

<p>Fabulous scenery, though !</p>

<p>Bill P.</p>